Health-care reform kills jobs?

Our Readers Who Comment are in a mudslinging debate about the news that some business interests and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are collecting money to finance a study showing the job killing potential of health-care reform as Senate debate approaches.

As Michael D. Shear reports in one of several health-care related stories and columns today, "The behind-the-scenes effort by the business groups to influence the legislative debate is part of an intensifying series of attacks by the opponents of Democratic health-care plans."

Some readers call this a travesty of justice and ask how to stop it; others argue the well-known talking points on both sides of the central issues. There is also an article addressing the question of what should be done about care for some immigrants; there is an Associated Press report that the government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims in 2009, and there is a Robert J. Samuelson column arguing that the health care overhaul plans would "would almost certainly make matters worse" for the nation's economy.

We'll review comments on Shear's story and Samuelson's column, starting with Shear.

dl49, who asked, "How blatant can the opponents of health care reform get? They've already arrived at their conclusion -- now they think they can fool the public by employing a hired-gun with no ethics to write a report to support their existing conclusions. Do they really think there are ethical economists who would take this contract..."

arunc1 provided an answer, writing, "You can hire an economist to reach pretty much any conclusion you want. Tax cut for the rich ? An economist is there to tell you it is a great idea. Two wars fought without paying for ? Sure, great idea. Financial deregulation ? Brilliant plan... Views of a respected economist (Paul Krugman) are already known. He is for health care reform. Oh wait, he is not respectable because you do not agree with him ?..."

27081 asked, "Where do I send my contribution to help stop this travesty from being forced upon the American taxpayer?"

pkhenry said, ""Lefties must make sure that opposing points of view are never heard. That is how the Soviet Union operated."

To which DC Sage replied, "The views of republicans are the views of their insurance company sugar daddies... Never has an entire political party been pimped so badly by a few insurance company executives with their hands full of money."

notthatdum wrote, "After the past few decades the The U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be raising funds for their legal defense on charges of Treason."

AppDev said, "It should be beneath the Post to pander to the Chamber by talking about a "study" whose conclusions are dictated in advance."

edanddot wrote, "They can commission all the studies they want. Most intelligent voters will see the Chamber's study for what it is - biased. The Chamber of Commerce is directly responsible for the influx of illegal aliens to provide cheap labor. They could care less if the average American has to pick up the tab for these uninsured immigrants. They are part of the problem, not the solution."

dryrunfarm1 wrote:
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, a government study concludes that the annual cost of Medicare fraud is $45B. I wonder how many businesses could start on $45B a year, every year, and how many millions of employees those businesses would create.

While we're on the topic of fraud against government entitlement programs, let's not forget SSI, AFDC or food stamps. How many jobs might THAT money have been able to start, and how many millions more Americans might have had jobs if this money were put to honest use, instead of being stolen, first, by liberals, and then by the crooks who vote for liberals.

But, of course, somewhere near $100B from economic productivity is good for the country. If it weren't, the conclusion would already be in that health care reform - which will certainly not be less fraudulently used than Medicare, AFDC, SSI or food stamps - will be NOT-good for the country. Last I knew, "not-good" was the substantive equivalent of "bad."

And, by the way, if this fraud is bad for the country, and you vote for people who support programs known to be employed for what is bad for the country, the syllogism would seem to allow no other conclusion than that YOU are bad for the country. Supporting Obama's health care horror only makes you - and him - worse.
11/16/2009 6:55:15 AM

lonquest wrote, "Samuelson, you're totally misreading the economics of this scenario. If we don't do health care reform, the majority of the American population will be without access to health insurance within less than a decade, which will cause the financial collapse of the health care system itself..."

But janet8 said, "Mr. Samuelson, thank you for a very candid column, which is a pleasant surprise coming from this biased news organization. It's about time an MSM column speaks truthfully about Obamacare and the misleading rhetoric coming from Obama and his administration. They are truly snake oil salesmen..."

seakeys suggested, "Instead of the wailing and moaning, why not accept the inevitable....healthcare reform is going to happen....focus your inspired opinions on what's going to be the program, not thinking what you can do to bring the program down...."

DOps wrote, "PLain talk, plain truth. I know many will comment from the emotional left. But, this is a clear staement of why the current health care proposals are irresponsible and frankly, bad governance..."

Hillman1 asked, "So do you have any actual solutions, or are you just advocating more of the status quo, which gets noticeable worse every year?"

And pickles1 said, "Finally, someone calls it like it really is....but will anyone listen? This so-called healthcare reform bill is a travesty the libbies are attempting to foist upon the American people against their will...by the same people who claimed we needed to pass a "stimulus bill" that would curb unemployment and stop its rise beyond 8%....it is now at 10%+...."